CEI Architecture Planning Interiors has applied to the City of Vancouver to rezone 960 and 982 Howe Street from DD (Downtown District) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The purpose of the rezoning is to permit the development of a 15-storey commercial office building. The proposed project would be comprised of 24,982 square metres (268,908 square feet) with a floor space ratio (FSR) of 11.2, and a maximum building height of 61 metres (200 feet).

So what's going to happen to the 25' slice of land at 948 Howe that is left over when this project is done?
The land under 948 will become too valuable to have a just two story building sitting on it, but can a new 25' building be built between this project to the south and the neighbour to the north that maximizes the increased value of the land?

??? I'm not sure what you find bothersome about that. Infill should be sensitive to its context, so that it doesn't stand out too much.

Agreed, but it also stifles creativity in the design somewhat. You can tell the building has been designed with UDP approval in mind (not that there's anything wrong with that - if it was my money, that's what I would do!).

What is the definition of infill anyway? Is it where a project is built to the lot lines? I've seen the term used on this forum to describe everything from a two-unit townhouse project to this building, which is one of the largest recent downtown developments (by floor area) in recent years.

I think you could use infill to describe many things. I sorta take it as building out a site to match the massing in the area (like here) or building out to zoning (in C-2 or C-3A areas). At 200' though, this is definitely pushing the "infill" definition, even if it is downtown. I think it's a great looking building considering the site restraints (height/viewcones) and we should never complain about new office projects.

I'll take the devil's advocate approach and voice my opinion that this particular infill is too tall for its site. It strains to fit in, but sticks up about 4 storeys too high for where it is. If it were more interesting in design and instead attempted to add something architecturally interesting to the site, then I'd be more encouraging of height. But they are essentially filling in the corner with an over-tall, uninteresting, responsive design that should either blow the height restriction altogether and ask to go very tall or be 'responsive' and take away some of that mass from the top and the corner.

This building will be considerably shorter than the Electric Avenue complex on the west side of Robson Square - Vancouver is just not familiar with tall street walls (Dunsmuir from Granville to Burrard is really our only example).

The design isn't all that bad. The cornice line introduces a roof deck that the tenants will like (the massing reminds me of the MaRS addition to Toronto General Hospital, but in a much more superficial manner). See here:

Think it's too early to tell, the massing itself seems fine. I think the details that will go into it are what will make or break it. At this point it's still unknown if the neighbouring property will join in or not, if it does that will change the ratio and feel of the building.
That said this is a sizeable project and with all the other projects will create some real oppurtunity in this city.

Let me continue to be pessimistic for a moment, and firstly say that it is highly unlikely the quality of the building going up in Toronto will be what we see on this site--although I would like to be pleasantly surprised.

If the roof deck becomes anything other than a smokers hangout I will be surprised. But again, would like to be pleasantly surprised this is not the case.

If the building pictured what we get at the Vancouver site, then perhaps the height at 15 storeys with a high degree of transparency and interesting surface treatments would be great.

This is actually quite a prominent site, or has the potential to be--being a main corridor out of downtown, intersecting with another main corridor and across from a significant public building--albeit at the back side of it.

A mediocre building at lower height is okay, but not at the proposed one. This building doesn't measure up--yet.

I'd rather have the smokers on a balcony high above the sidewalk than lining the sidewalk.

Transparency is probably what you don't want - otherwise it'll have that cluttered condo look and the two tints won't be distinct.
On the other hand, if it's too reflective, it'll just reflect the backside of the Law Courts (not very attractive) -
so maybe a darkly tinted glass and a silvery tinted accent glass would work.

There's an office building (Revenue Canada?) at 1050 West Pender that has two tones.
The tones are distinct on that building (although the building it self isn't attractive).